World Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 1024 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
World Oil Co. and Teamsters Automotive Employees
Union, Local No. 78, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-1 1791
June 25, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On February 14, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 20 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he
found appropriate the Petitioner 's requested unit of
employees at the Employer 's six gasoline service
stations in San Pablo, Concord, Sunnyvale, San Jose,
and Morgan Hill, California , rejecting the Employ-
er's contention that the station managers , the only
individuals currently employed in the unit, are
supervisory or managerial employees. Thereafter, in
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, as
amended, the Employer filed a timely request for
review of the Regional Director 's Decision on the
grounds, inter alia, that he departed from officially
reported precedent in finding the station managers
not to be supervisors , and that the petition should be
dismissed as there are at present no employees in the
unit.
On March 8, 1974, by telegraphic order, the request
for review was granted and the election stayed
pending decision on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review and finds
that no question exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the
following reasons:
The Employer is a California corporation engaged
in the retail sale of gasoline and related automotive
products at a number of self-service stations. The
Petitioner filed the instant petition on December 19,
1973, for a unit of station attendants at six of the
Employer's stations in northern California at the
aforementioned locations . At that time the Employer
employed approximately 26 station attendants at
these six stations . However, as a result of the recent
"energy crisis," the Employer prior to the January
25, 1974, hearing date reduced the operations of the
six stations to a single daytime shift , and discharged
all station attendants, leaving only the station
manager at five of the stations and a manager trainee
at the sixth, together with the area manager who was
responsible for operations at all six of the stations.
The Regional Director found that when station
attendants were employed , the station managers had
authority to assign work to attendants, to responsibly
direct them in its performance, and to hire and
discharge them . However , he further found that, in
the absence of the employment of station attendants,
the station managers are not supervisors within the
meaning of the Act because they do not exercise
supervisory authority over any employees. The
Employer contends that the Regional Director erred
in finding the station managers not to be supervisors,
and that the absence of station attendants is
temporary as it will reemploy them when the "energy
crisis" is over . It argues , therefore , that no election
may be held until a substantial complement of
station attendants is employed in the requested unit.
We find merit in the Employer's position.
Initially, the record establishes that prior to the
termination of the station attendants the station
managers were supervisors as defined in the Act by
virtue of their possession and exercise of the
authority, at a minimum , effectively to recommend
the hire and discharge of employees.' Further, the
Employer's market manager, Glenn Sapp, testified
that when attendants are reemployed in the future,
the station managers will resume the exercise of
supervisory authority. While the Employer, at the
hearing , was unable to predict when attendants
would be reemployed, we take official notice of the
fact that since the hearing there has been an easing of
the "energy crisis" permitting a substantial increase
in allocations of gasoline to retail service stations
such as the Employer's. There is, therefore, a
reasonable basis for concluding that station attend-
ants will be reemployed in the foreseeable future.
i Mars Oil Company and Lunar Oil Company, 101 NLRB 669.
211 NLRB No. 146
WORLD OIL CO. 1025
In view of the foregoing, we find that the "energy
crisis" which caused, the reduction in the Employer's
operations and the termination of its attendants at
the stations here involved created but a temporary
hiatus in the opportunity of station managers to
exercise their supervisory authority and therefore did
not divest them of supervisory status.2 In the
circumstances, as there were no employees in the unit
at the time of the hearing, we shall dismiss the
petition herein.3
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
2 Massachusetts Mohair Plush Company, 115 NLRB 1516, 1523 (Americo
Martin).
3 Our dismissal of the petition is without prejudice to the filing of a new
petition when a substantial number of station attendants are employed.